Like smoking, eating to excess is a matter of choice, argues Simon Clark
food is the new tobacco. seriously, it is. The same arguments that are used against smoking have been adapted to attack our eating habits.
Just as we are told to "quit smoking or die", so we are told that a leading and growing cause of preventable death is diet. According to the experts, a fifth of Britain's population will be obese within the next 10 to 15 years, and by 2040 half the population will be "superfat".
Meanwhile a Left-wing think-tank is arguing that a tax on "fatty, highly processed and fast foods" would encourage people to eat more healthily, and the International Obesity Task Force has called for a ban on advertisements for sugary drinks and junk food that target children. Sound familiar?
The trouble with the anti-smoking, anti-obesity movements is that they create a culture that encourages discrimination. Two years ago the smokers' pressure group FOREST found that some companies were advertising for "non-smokers only". Last year the group reported that a man had been sacked after just a day in his new job not because he defied a smoking ban at work but because his employer discovered that he smoked at home.
This year a report by the Association for the Study of Obesity found that excessively fat students are 65 per cent less likely to get a place at the university of their choice than thinner applicants. They are also less likely to get a job and less likely to be promoted at work. Obese women are reportedly paid on average five per cent less than their slimmer colleagues.
Like smoking, eating to excess is a matter of choice. I don't condone it but nor would I condemn it. The trick is getting the balance right between tackling obesity and preserving individual freedom. This balance is now seriously in danger in Scotland after First Minister Jack McConnell recently announced that changing the eating habits of the Scottish nation was to be his personal political crusade.
After all, what do people mean by "healthy eating"? The science of diet seems to change every day so who is to say that one view is better than another? When I was growing up we were told to drink a pint of milk a day and go to work on an egg; later we were told to cut down on dairy products because it increased our level of cholesterol. A few years ago we were encouraged to eat more carbohydrates; now it seems we should reduce processed carbohydrates. A glass of red wine a day was said to be good for us; now we're told that a glass of wine a day increases the risk of a woman developing breast cancer.
Your diet is your own business. Yet when beef on the bone was temporarily banned a few years ago one hotelier was successfully prosecuted for serving it to his customers who knew about the (tiny) health risk but demanded that he put it on the menu. A listeria scare in cheese provoked a similar knee-jerk reaction from government, which temporarily banned unpasteurised cheeses until it was discovered that the listeria was present in pasteurised cheeses as well.
The European Society of Cardiology was recently told that doctors and governments must take the issue of diet and exercise more seriously. According to one speaker, encouraging people to eat more fruit and vegetables and to take exercise does not work if there are no policies to help people change. The danger, as we see it, is that for "policies" read "legislation", for "encouragement" read "coercion".
"Education not legislation" is our motto. Antony Worrall Thompson, TV chef and patron of FOREST, says, "Everything in moderation and a little bit in excess. I think the nanny state is completely wrong. I am who I am and it will be my choice when to give up smoking and when to lose weight." Fellow TV chef Clarissa Dickson Wright agrees: "Nobody tells me what to eat. Freedom is a simple choice, it is quite straightforward. All you have to do is say no."
